The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the location of the accident in this case is expected at any time as a bus stop, pedestrians and passengers access to the bus stop, and in particular, since the time of the accident is 20:35 times with a large number of passengers, the defendant has a duty of care to reduce speed in the course of attaching a bus to India to stop at the bus stop, and to check whether passengers or pedestrians have access to the bus.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not properly look at the movement of the victim at the bus stops and did not discover the victim due to occupational negligence and shocking the victim. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts of incomplete deliberation and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged and determination of the party deliberation

A. The summary of the facts charged was around 20:35 on September 16, 201, the Defendant driven a bus E in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and proceeded at about 30 km in the speed of G from the Fside by three lanes in the direction of G in the direction of G.

In this case, the defendant engaged in driving service has a duty of care to thoroughly prevent the accident from occurring.

Nevertheless, when the defendant neglected to go on the front side of the vehicle driving by the defendant, the victim H (the age of 43) who walked on the road from the right side of the direction of the defendant's running on the sidewalk when the defendant neglected to go on the front side of the road, and the above victim was placed on the road, and the victim was placed on the right side of the above vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the above victim by occupational negligence as above.

B. We examine the judgment of the party, and the driver of a motor vehicle shall be able to avoid the result in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation.